How to fix your color science editionPreviously: >>4521485
>>4522451I’ve never had green issues with sony but then again i am not a woman alhamdulillah
>>4522467> Desert nomad does not know what green is.
>>4522451why would any sane man voluntarily spent irl money to purchase a sony?
Reality check time. Facts don’t care about your forced memes. https://www.photoxels.com/sony-strikes-another-5th-news-agency-win-reuters-decides-on-sony-a7s-iii-and-pxw-z280-as-their-journalists-main-shooting-kit/https://www.photoxels.com/britains-pa-media-group-selects-sony-alpha-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-and-cinema-line-camera-fx3-as-preferred-equipment/https://www.photoxels.com/fourth-win-sony-strikes-deal-with-the-canadian-press-to-be-its-exclusive-image-products-provider/https://www.photoxels.com/gannett-usa-today-selects-sony-as-exclusive-imaging-product-provider-for-their-photographers-and-journalists/https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visual-journalists-globally-with-sony-imaging-products/https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/sony-again-claims-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/sony-dominates-canon-and-nikon-in-the-mirrorless-camera-market-for-the-third-year-running/https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/mirrorless-cameras/the-sony-a7-v-and-a7r-vi-are-so-popular-sony-now-has-an-even-bigger-chunk-of-the-full-frame-camera-market-but-thats-not-even-whats-breaking-recordshttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji//p/ users love repeating a lie constantly until someone believed it. Ie: xtrans prevents moire, live view blinkies matter, m43 is good. It helps to see some facts now and then!
>>4522504SIR DELETE THISTHIS IS NOT FAIR SIRI HAVE ANTI SONY INSTAGRAM VIDEOS YOU JUST CONTRADICT! DELETE!
>>4522504>Reality check time. Facts don’t care about your forced memes.If only you took your own advice
>>4522506>journalism and facts are forced memesYou literally cant handle the truth
>>4522504The sony hating nikon shilling furfag isn’t going to like this
>>4522511crossposting
>>4522504I wonder why ALL (all) the other brands don't need blatantly sponsored articles to deboonk the MASSIVE amounts people complaining about poor colour science. Funny, isn't it..? :^)
>>4522516>facts? journalism? SPONOSORED! SHILLING! IT CAN NOT BE TRUE!>some israeli furfag samefagging /p/ to death? some manlet incel who got banned from every camera forum and came here to spam? MASSIVE TRUTH!I literally have not seen a non-sony camera in professional use for three years, with two exceptions:My brothers wedding. He didnt want to pay a ton for a photographer and ended up with some woman with two nikon z30 + kit zooms. The photos sucked technically and artistically so she edited them all polaroid style. No prints over 5x7 were available. None. Our mother had to shout her down to get normal looking 8x10s for the adults. The video (static tripod) looked fine. She charged $300. Sports games. These are 50/50 canon sony, no other brands are seen.
Any time someone on /p/ insists sony is horrible and the cameras are poorly made, with photos of broken shutters, picked-at weather seals and reddit links, and then tells you to buy nikon or micro four thirds… remember there’s a good chance they’re in this photo
I need pricing help if anyone is good at this.>I want to get a 100-400mm RF lens.>CPW just posted a street price of $649 for new>The lowest new price otherwise is $749>The latest refurbished sale was $500Is buying new at $649 a good idea?
>>4522524>is buying new a good ideaNoBuy on ebay and test decentering asap, do an item not as described if there are issues (smeared defocused light point, one corner or edge much softer than others)
Do you think this 60€ Muji backpack is any good? For day trips, throwing in my camera and maybe a lens or two and a bottle of water
>>4522451So which camera brands have actually good color science then?
>>4522537I change my cameras and brands more than my underwear. The best color imo had the og Leica Q. The raw files were near perfect and just needed a bit of whitebalance fixing
>>4522537Any if you're able to click a button or two in postSony is #1 if you take blind comparison voting to be true
>>4522537Sony. Its in the facts: >>4522504In objective scientific tests the two most color accurate cameras are the fuji xt3 and sony a7RIII
>>4522537I never had color complaints with my OG Pentax K-1
>>4522537Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon or Leica. Pick any, you can't go wrong. There's a reason they don't constantly change their color science in every new model they release. They already perfected it decades ago.
>>4522553we can see the truth nuke at the top of the thread bro take a break your dogwife probably misses you
>>4522520I see them around in pro use. The only two brands I ever see used professionally are Canon and Sony, with Canon usually being for something like architectural work and Sony for things like advertising and modelling work. As for personal cameras, it seems like a lot of people use Sony outside of work (which I do as well despite using Canon at work) and I just find the cameras more fun to use and the overall look to be better. I do also use a Canon compact sometimes too if I just want a tiny camera in my pocket for the day.I'd be stunned if a Fuji was being used anywhere professionally though, I don't even see those in the wild anymore. It seems like the Ricoh has taken their place as I see those a lot and people post on IG all the time about their film looks.>>4522537Sony and Canon, though Nikon does alright as well. Fuji has "good'" color science if you really want to go fully into some of the weirder film like looks for your photos. It's really all about preference in the end, but if you want to be as accurate as possible, Sony and Canon are pretty much it.
>>4522467Newer Sonys push magenta.
>>4522568>if i pixel peep it on dpreview its true>if someone opens capture one and proves its processing variance ill forget they did>if anyone posts their own photos to prove me wrong ill forget>if pros use the camera i say dpreview proves is bad its all lies>and if no one agrees with me i’ll repeat myself again and again and again!>WHY DONT U WANT BETTER CAMERAS?>-some literally autistic halfway house resident that doesn’t own a camera
>>4522563>I'd be stunned if a Fuji was being used anywhere professionally thoughIt's basically only people that just prefer Fuji for whatever reason, plenty out there. Benjamin Kanarek would be an example in the fashion realm of things.>>4522568Good thing it's a complete non-issue in the real world
>>4522572>Good thing it's a complete non-issue in the real worldprofessional creators disagreehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3l0HDGh7PM&t=1087
>>4522573>a youtuber got color shifts by missing exposure 5 stops with a consumer aps-c camera! END OF THE WORLD!The asperger subhuman is back on his old shtickhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/w9HpsyL0i4rbzGOC60hE5g/You gonna repeat this one 20 times too ya hand flapping sexless freak?
>>4522573If this were a real issue it would be widely documented by more than some fucking failure whose only purpose in life is getting people to watch ads on youtubeJust another “creator” (useless ad man) using the wrong settings, again. Youtubers are bad at photography. Like julia trotti. Total fucking retard. You won’t see annie leibovitz doing this influencer shit.
>>4522572> t. That guy who took a Nikon Z5, a color target, and a tripod on a casual date.
>>4522574oh my fucking god>>4522573you had this argument already and got destroyedyou didnt post a photo or proof you own a camera then eitherfuck off
What are the chances one of the primary brands for pros is actually bad and the proof was always in some amateur generated camera reviews and the wisdom of some mentally disabled man?Could it be true? Of course. No way would amateurs use their cameras and software incorrectly. The wildly popular cameras are the problem. And a disabled weirdo has the facts and logic (mostly logic) to back it up. He’s so smart he doesnt even need to use a camera to know how they work. Who are we to trust countless professionals over… this guy:>LIIIII VEEEWWWW BLINKIES *FLAPFLAPFLAP* FUJI NO MOIRE SONY MOIRE PROOF DPREVIEWWWW *FLAPFLAPFLAP* MOOOOOMMM I WANT TENDIES
>>4522569Wow. Thank you for putting eggs in there! Film can easily be 1000MP or higher if you just use a big enough piece of it, btw. I've gotten over 600MP off an 8x10 sheet before using a shitty flatbed scanner! Film is pretty cool like that. :D
>>4522579Explain how mega*pixels* apply to film before being digitized without using the word "equivalence".I'll wait.
>>4522579I can make any image 1000mp with the resize tool in microsoft photoshop
>>4522580They don't at all, obviously, but you can approximate it and compare if you really wanted to. You know like with those boring ass nerdy lp/mm test chart thingies. Take a pic of it and then look at the film to see the smallest lines resolved. Truly the greatest thing you could do with your cameras and film!It could be useful to know for some boring ass applications. Film grain can be a really nice addition to photographs just like ultra fine tonality and no grain from big film can also be amazing. It just depends what kinda look you want in your prints, ya'know?
>>4522582Wow that's pretty crazy. Does Adobe paint also work?
>>4522579Either your flatbed is magical and better than alex burke’s drum scanner, or everyone laughs at you because you are clearly delusional and post blurry photos while making absurd resolution claims. https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2024/11/12/maximum-print-size-for-film-scans
>>4522580megadotsperinch
Attention all film resolution experts:Your film may be losing resolution over time!According to the principles of rotational velocidensity established by Stein and Levi in 1973, all information on a rotating medium is inherently unstable and may spontaneously change state depending on the present state of the local virtual gravity eddy currents as guaranteed by Baum’s 2nd law of quantum metaphysics, that is, that all probable interactions between two sets of probabalities have their own associated nth order abstraction probable causal tuning effects and ultimately possibly affect the world line’s harmonics. Your film is, as it sits, dereifying at a rate of 0.02e-17 bits per picosecond. You can only reverse this by storing your film so that it rotated counter to the earths spin. This sufficiently complicates its interactions with uncreated potential reality to make deireification events over 700 times less likely. I recommend orienting (build a wooden stand if necessary) a record player against the earths spin as it is relative to your location (this is easy to calculate, so i trust you can do it) and placing your film in a shoebox on top of an old recordIf you do not heed my advice your film will get blurrier and less certain with age
>>4522585Idk angry bro, you tell me. This is a crop about half the size of a 35mm frame. I guess if we're being extra gay and nerdy I meant resolving power or whatever you want to call it. I don't have any calipers here, so I can't measure those small lines of text on the bottle, unfortunately.I think more people laugh at how seriously some people take the basket weaving forums kek. Someone actually spent time and effort making that graphic about their greatest enemies on /p/. It's really quite funny.
>>4522591Blurry
>>4522590If I put my SD cards in the shoebox could that possibly help me destretch my colors or do I need to 3d print something for that???
>>4522590Film megapixel expert here. This is true. >/p/ - audiophiles
>>4522592Its 1/120th of the negative with zero added sharpening.
>>4522595So 1554x1300=2mp is 1/120th? Its a 240mp image?That’s not 600mpAnd its blurry = you overscanned it. Theres no additional detail. It could be 2/3 as big and still be as detailed, there’s no point. Its more like 150mp really.
>>4522597I haven't examined the negative closely to check if the smallest text is resolved, but I would bet that it is. Still sticking with 600MP as a conservative estimate.
>>452259735mm was objectively measured at 275MP anyways, so I'm being extremely conservative with that number.
Big blurry photo != high resolving powerDetermining this is what test charts are for (imatest). One and done, objective lp/mm measurement and mtf curves. Zooming in on 20 snapshits of blurry pets and blurry junk and arguing about them is a pointless activity. You will always find that you’re camera has fewer megapickles than you thought it did and you were zooming in on and scrutinizing shit for no reason.
>>4522568>>4522573Nigger i have the a6700Tell me what settings to use and what to take pic of and i ll post it here to checkIf it true or not
>>4522601But that is not nearly as fun. Also 35mm film was tested at 275MP, so you can just easily multiply that by 60 to get your answer. I underestimated, greatly.
>>4522599>objectively measured>"objectively">""measured""Some guy online said a thing and you believed it because it suits your preconcieved stance on the subject.
>>4522608Wrong. I thought film was way lower MP than that before real world testing proved otherwise. It's clear that the preconceived notions are held by the more... digital inclined in this thread, shall we say.
>>4522569>the left can't meme
>>4522609>real world testingCare to provide the results of this test, the white paper you wrote up to commit to the academic community, and the list of peers who reviewed your work?Your annecdotes mean fuck and all, and that's coming from someone who shoots film.
>>4522613Yeah just gimme a sec I gotta go find it.
Anyone who has actually handled 35mm film knows it is not 275 mpx... Unless you mean the whole roll...
>>4522617Me when I handle real film so I can count the individual megapickles
>>4522578> What are the chances one of the primary brands for shooting celebrities and propaganda is actually bad and unsuitable for amateur photographyYou tell me anon, I just want to have fun with my photos.
Have beat to shit XT3 with two lenses.Do I move to the ZF? I want the bigger selection of lenses from Voigtlander because I only like manual lenses. I also want to try Meyer Optik lenses in their "original" full frame focal lengths without the crop.
>>4522629>it’s da joooooooooos!
>>4522643Nikon's subject detection while MF with any lens + chipped adapters to make any adapted lens chipped has been a game changer. No longer need to use peaking or zoom in for MF at all. Even provides the arrow indicators and allows for focus trapping.That said, I've grown to dislike the Zf body, and greatly prefer the X-T line when it comes to actually operating the camera. Zf is better built, with great weather sealing (from my experiences), but you really need a grip / half case for most lenses. Z5II offers all the same stuff, and more, in a more functional body.
>>4522647If the creaky plastic zf with its thin grip pleather and easily gouged base is better built than an fuji xt, add one to reasons fuji is a scam
I see 50% off some IRIX lenses (non-cine DSLR) and now I have a dilemma, because those things look big and heavy.
>>4522648Mines held up in pretty substantial amounts of rain, and no damage or anything like that after 3 years of heavy useHow many cameras have you broken or had to send in repair from your typical usage? What models?
>>4522669>but it didnt break :( leave nikon aloneI’m not paying $1500 for a plasticky feeling camera that’s prone to squeaks, creaks, scratched plastic, and grips flaking/peeling. Sorry!Better luck next time, 3rd rate budget oriented consumer camera brand!
How much per unit did nikon save by using softer, thinner gloss plastic for the bottom half? $0.005?This thing costs how much again?Since when was quality PLASTIC a special feature for professional samurai models that us mere ungrateful rice farming peasants don’t deserve?
aside from being made of plastic, slow autofocus, heavy, no stabilization, solar flare and some optical distortions, what's the catch? seems a pretty good deal
is there some rabid snoyfag in cologne? everywhere I go I see SONY tagged on random poles
>>4522672the fact that the zf is offered in 20 different color combinations should've told you it was a cheap toy. what did you expect anon? buy leica if you want cnc machined metal made by aryan ubermensch in northern evropa.
>>4522574>>4522575>>4522577>>4522578A normal human would admit that the a6700 has exceptionally bad color which anyone with eyes can see (Sony did improve more recent cameras), but since you are a damage control shill you have to follow your posting guidelines.
>resident fujiworm schizo still posting his debunked "proofs" ad nauseamSad, many such cases.
>>4522602take a pic with a6700 and another camera of the same thing, same settings, and show them side-by-side.I know from experience wrangling Sony files that the shadows on the background of this example are artificially reddened. An accurate image looks more like right example.https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7692340468/656838
>>4522673apparently the catch is that the lens snaps off the camera body and falls on the floor…
>>4522683Instead of fabricating an image of what it supposedly apparently should look like why don't you show as an image of what it actually does look like?
>>4522680https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/zj1OAlFyYQ3kixzYD82lgA/Holy fucking repost. Do you own a camera?>>4522683>pixel peep some bad photography on dpreview>turn the shadows lime green>i fixd it snoy shuld hire meDo you own a camera?
>>4522683>a red furred dog is red. quick, turn everything green!actual retardis this chaoscloud or whoever from the dpreview forums, the notorious fat retard that lives with his mom?
Apparently, its becoming common for people to not know how cameras and light work. They’re used to their phones auto enhancements neutralizing everything and shitting out zero contrast artificially sharpened hdr photos with five different white balances. When they see real photos where each light source including light reflecting off things has its own color, they think their camera is broken and proceed to buy another. And then again!>WHY CANT I GET GOOD COLOR SCIENCE?Until they settle on an 8 bit CCD DSLR or 8 bit CCD film scanner that doesn't have the color resolution to detect those color differences at alMaybe canon was right to be as aggressively dismissive of non-professional users as possibleMaybe… the Jews were right about goyim.
>>4522688Dont forget the other gearfag paths>buying the newest sony to get the most up to date lightroom presets and throwing gm lenses at everything until it looks good>buying a fuji, underexposing everything, hiding their lack of effort behind vsco filters, and only using their $2000 toy to post 2mp jpgs of cats and benches>going back to their phone and complaining while posting dpreview slop on 4chan
Snoy schizo saw a light magenta cast and went off the rails again.
Man fuuuck this tariff bs. Ordered a cheap camera from japan and just shipping would have added $40, but now it's $80 due to this new bs.
>>4522683Congratulations on turning all of the black objects green
>>4522694it's hard to get the files to look decent that is why I don't bother with Sony anymore.
>>4522695The original was normal. Literally perfectly neutral. You turned it green. Post proof you own a camera.
>>4522683Damn it was true all along.
>>4522698Do you own a camera?
>>4522695Who gave the greenlight for such bizarre color renditions on every single sony camera?
>>4522700Hello, autistic samefag. I’m asking you a basic question. Do you own a camera?
>>4522700The thing with Sony is that they are electronics product makers, not camera makers. Even in their manuals the word "camera" isn't used, it is always "product".They are optimizing for dynamic range charts at the expense of photographic image quality aspects.The color issue may be a result of using faint color filters on their sensors which improves light transmission but makes balancing the primaries and their response curve much more difficult.
>>4522703Oh so they're just products for chart nerds and not designed with real photographers in mind? Kinda sucks so many care more about numbers instead of how the pictures actually look.
>I tried the Sigma 18-50mm today on an R7.>It didn't seem to have as much background blur as I wanted.>I shoot portraits 95% of the time.Should I consider a prime lens instead like the 56mm f/1.4? And then just throwing a cheap ~16mm prime in the backpack for the rare occasion I want a landscape?
>>4522703Just because you use a load of clever sounding words doesn't mean you're right and actually know what you're talking about. The fact that you parrot that bullshit about them calling it a product and not a camera shows how much of a sheep you are. Just as an example the A7R III manual mentions camera 428 times in 715 pages (and that's all languages, only 92 are in English but Italian and Dutch also probably contribute to those mentions).>>4522704People like to dismiss the charts because it shows factually that Sony bodies are often on top. The thing is the actual photos from these cameras are also decent, when asked to show proof of the contrary, of this sickly green colour cast they supposedly have, they can only post a screenshot from a youtube video of some bimbo that messed up the white balance (probably on purpose, but she could just be incompetent) or they fabricate shit like >>4522683 Also they have no rebuttal whenever someone mentions other brands having colour casts. I think some older Canons used to be a bit red or something like that, I don't remember because it was minor shit that doesn't fucking matter unless you're doing scientific work.
>>4522709Youre ultra biased and constantly spam the gear thread. I wasn't asking you, but maybe you can explain why do all the pictures always look so bad? Maybe there is more than just numbers?
>>4522710>>4522704>>4522703DoYouOwnACamera?
>>4522706I used this on canon ef-m mount. Its a very good lens.
>>4522504/thread.
>>4522711Answer my question first please.
>>4522714Do you own a camera?
I've got a 90DI love my 90DSo why the fuck am I looking at 5D Mk IV's?
>>4522711jannies be legit wondering how this absolute chad always nails straight (yous)
>>4522717Nice samefag, kek. Now please answer my question.
>>4522718
>>4522615Where is it?
>>4522720he has proof a flatbed=600mp 8x10 like sony hate schizo has a camerathese gear schizos dont get that like, everyone hates them
>>4522723You patrol every thread on /p/ making sure no one talks bad about your favorite mega-corp, and if they do you spam the thread with a sony brand meltdown. Stop taking the bait every single time.
>>4522716/gear/ Brainrot
>>4522724Do you own a camera?
>>4522719You first retardNo balls if notnta
>>4522704>Oh so they're just products for chart nerds and not designed with real photographers in mind? Kinda sucks so many care more about numbers instead of how the pictures actually look.Exactly. Same thing with sharpness. They deleted Optical Low-Pass Filters (OLPF) which slightly increases sharpness on charts, but as result we get terrible false colour striping (moire) and other false colour effects.https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg
>>4522710>maybe you can explain why do all the pictures always look so bad?They don't, and you never provide proof of this beyond purposely bad examples. The burden is on you, plenty of people have posted examples of fuji worms because it's an actual thing.>>4522729This is not something unique to Sony bodies, and it's not all Sonys
>>4522729Really quite sad to see that. The colors are just awful in that image as well. Nearly vomit inducing. If one of my pictures came out like that I would return the camera.>>4522727>doesn't disagree>continues schizo spam
>>4522686>newfag doesn't know what a meme is
>>4522729You had this argument already. Many times.https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/You lost it last thread. >>4521485 It is a processing and lens issue. Dpreview’s editor (ACR) isn’t as good as capture one and they tend towards reviewing with the sharpest lens their reviewer has. Sharp lenses cause moire even with an OLPF. The what why and how was fully explained last thread. By multiple people. We contributed original samples. You keep stealing off dpreview. Where is your camera? Do you own a camera?>>4522728I own a camera. This fucking autist either doesn’t or he’s an ashamed namefag/identityfag that hasn’t been acting like his other persona.
>>4522732Samefagging shill
>>4522729I was going to buy a sony but this thread convinced me not to. Thanks anon.
>>4522741>schizo copeMany, many such cases.
>>4522739No, anon, he does not own a cameraHe is a paid fucking shillA human being wouldnt lose the same bullshit argument and go back to PROOF SNOY IS BAD A NORMAL HUMAN WOULD ADMIT SNOY IS BAD AND BUY FUJI the next day. They would learn their fucking lesson, that all cameras are basically the same. A normal human being wouldn’t repost the same fucking lost arguments over and over again and source everything from shitty review samples either. It’s a paid shill. Possibly a bot. It can not even post proof it has hands let alone a camera. It will never ever ever shut up. Its purpose is to post “proof” sony is bad and fuji is good until someone believes it. One xs20 sold probably covers the cost of paying/operating this thing tenfold.
>>4522742Samefag. >>4522741Correct. >>4522745Also correct. It’s an obvious shill/bot.
>>4522746no anon. I just saw the extremely aggressive sony shilling in this thread and real proof of how bad the cameras are. Look at the first couple dozen posts. Pure mental illness. Ive seen proof that fujis are pretty garbage here as well. Not sure if they are as terrible as sony but still.
>>4522749You post the exact same shit over and over, get proven wrong, and then post the exact same shit over and over. No one believes it so you reply to yourself. Do you own a camera?
>>4522751huh? I barely ever post here. I was just looking at various places online to see what camera people recommend. Do you have some photos you could share of your favorite camera?
>>4522749>i’ll stop lying on repeat if people stop saying sony isn’t shitSo you’re a shill
>>4522753>i barely ever post here>is in every thread>reused images with unchanged filenames>reused arguments>repetitive behavior>for months straightThe shill lies as it breaths
>>4522504Epic truth nuke>inb4 but i zoomed in on a test chart on dpreview and found a bad review on youtuber sir…
Okay, yeah I guess this was the wrong place to ask about cameras. It's just one guy angrily shilling sony cameras and having a bizarre schizo meltdown. Oh well, I tried. Thanks for confirming how bad sony cameras are guys.
>>4522759>i’m cornered. the guy who proved me wrong is the problem!The problem, shilljeet, is your “sony problems” (lies) are universal to all bayer cameras. Initially you were saying this, and shilling fuji over all other brands, repeating fuji marketing material. You’re treating into snoy hate because you think its more in line with /p/ groupthink and will help you maintain izzat. However, shilljesh, multiple people dogpiled you last thread. You’ve lost this entirely. Stop reposting your lies and post proof you even own a camera, or every gear thread from now on will emphatically recommend sony with detailed proof of sony supremacy. Just because you, and you alone hate sony. Your stupidity, constant reposts, and lack of camera ownership ultimately make sony look even better.
>>4522530YeahGood on you for buying a normal backpack for a normal person and not a 400 dollar monstrosity made of 10000 ballistic nylon with carcinogenic teflon coating. You will be much less afraid to use it and discard it when it gets cruddy enough
>mfw i just shitposted hard enough to fuck an indian fuji shill out of his paycheck
>>4522762Huh, well you've convinced me even more that sony is a terrible camera. Appreciate it anon. You save me a lot of money.
>>4522766hahaha you forgot to have grok correct your ESLisms. no rupees for you tonight, jam boy!
>>4522755>Everyone I don't like is one guy samefagging
>sony shill meltdown has reached new levels of schizo cope Nice.
>>4522769He got cucked, badly. Of course he thinks everyone is just one guy.
>>4522771>>4522770>one minute, one second, one post numbersamefag fo sho.
>>4522772>mega retard postingGood job detective samefag. I was stating an objective fact and then replied to someone. Unlike you, I do not reply to my own posts to make other people think that someone is agreeing with me.
Sure, you also barely post here.
>>4522777Im extremely happy that you have finally come to your senses and agree with me. One step at a time, lil guy.
>>4522779btw anon being a condecending dick-riding faggot doesn't make your argument any more valid.Try acting normal next time chuddy.
>calls everyone that disagrees with him a samefag>has literally been here for years instantly defending sony and gets extremely butthurt over some memesThis is actually really sad bro
>>4522672Lol the bottom of my FM looks better than this and that cameras has been ABUSED
Talk me out of wasting my money on a Panasonic GF9>inb4 mft
>>4522785>>4522782>>4522779>Raj seethes after americans fall asleepHe’s right. You’re a shilljeet.
>>4522803Only one dial which is shared with 4 way controller sucks for controlling exposure.No EVF also sucks for bright environments but you could use one of these loupes.
>>4522807They were literally all pre-midnight for westcoastfags. Even the last one was still 20 minutes off. You are delusional.
>>4522810>saar it was midnight in California
>>4522811Literally wasn't. Cope moar.
>>4522739>defends Sony feverishly>owns a Canon DSLR
>>4522803Lol mft
>>4522814Rajesh isnt eating tonight0 fujis soldPeople buying sony insteadVillage status: starving
>>4522683i don't have 2 camerasso i took the comparison pic with my phone. samsung a33both on manualmain camera of phone is 26mm 1.8i don;t have a 26mm lens but ive used the sigma 16mm 1.4 which is 24mm on ffwb 5500 on both. only natural light coming from left sideST profile on sony, default camera adjustments. no colour gradingsooc jpegs from phone and camera exported at 100% quality in lrc
>>4522826ok fuck . 100% on this jpg is not the same detail as on the original. wtfsony on manual, metering= multi. ss until exposure is 0 = 1/20sphone on pro modef1.8iso 100ss 1/0picture is dark as fuck, meter showing -1evadjust iso and ss until ev is showing 0iso 160, ss 1/10
>>4522826https://i.postimg.cc/Qtj9CRS7/DSC02787.jpgsettings same as in previous picsame settings as camera - ev was -1.9 not -1as in this post.>>4522827https://i.postimg.cc/J4KLCSBV/20260813-184109.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/XvjB7Rs8/20260813-184415.jpg3rd pic. note that the phone is standing on top of the camera tried to get both sensors more or less on same plane but phone ended up a further back because of the phone supportss1/10iso 160all of pics shot on 2s timer on tripod
>>4522829>>4522826Can you show us a magic trick?
>>4522814Explains a lot actually. Canon's DSLR cameras are so bad that the non-hylics who had the misfortune of finding their way into that system had to make their own firmware (magic lantern).Canon makes anything look good in comparison, even Sony.
>>4522826Wrong white balanceWindow light is cooler and greener than sunlight due to the UV blocking and energy efficiency coatingsSee /p/s problem is you all overwhelmingly do not know how to use a digital camera except praying auto mode gets it right, and have no idea how to develop a raw for pixel peeping quality and yet pixel peep anyways
>>4522833I use sony cameras at work. Canon DSLRs are superior for a hobby. >magic lanternIs a tragic dumpster fire for the lowest form of life - the A/V sperg>uhm but ith that 4k dci? Ith it 10 bit? ith it log gamma? i dont want to know unleth itht overthampled and not line thikkpt. where itht thuh open gate thetting?
>>4522834what was the correct white ballance?5500k is daylight. was daylight. sun up. little to no clouds. ok. my lowe 3 sheets windows maybe fucked it up. window should be open so the colours were more daylight accurate. but at both of them were on same wb
>>4522840The correct white balance is always, always either set off a gray card illuminated by whats illuminati your subject or auto mode’s best guess. Modern indoor lighting is not compatible with legacy white balance presets from the boomers-shooting-jpeg era. For example tungsten lighting doesn’t fucking exist. Just heavily tinted warm green LEDs. Modern windows don’t let real daylight through. Shade or cloudy can be close but you need a tint correction too. So use AWB or a gray card.
>>4522842i understand and you are correct. but realized that after your post. and i dont have a gray card.i ve set 5500k on both not to let phone and camera have different interpretations. tint might not be natural but should be same on both. was trying to get as little variables as possible between the phone/camera
>>4522846You don't need an actual grey card, just pick any white or grey neutral and use thathttps://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2320/v1/en/contents/0410B_custom_white_balance.htmlLiterally just point your camera and it sets it correctly for the sceneIf you really care this much though, just shoot RAW and worry about wb in post
>>4522847You can access this more easily if you have white balance on a custom button or in the i menu btwAlso real gray cards that are more neutral than printer paper and soda cans are cheap amazon shit just get one
>>4522846>i ve set 5500k on both not to let phone and camera have different interpretationsThat's fine. Better to use a set K value than AWB because AWB is constantly changing depending where your camera is pointed.
>>4522847> Shooting Sony without a color chartSome people just live on the edge don't they.
>>4522853>obnoxious indian anti-sony shill doesnt know about white balanceGoogle nikon green tintGoogle canon magenta tintLolAnon didnt use the right setting because he fell for the jpeg boomer presets are useful meme>it says daylight doe
>>4522846Grey card isn't needed anymore with modern mirrorless. you can just set the K value and tint by eye, comparing screen with what you see, tweaking until it matches.For this to work you first need to calibrate the EVF/screen of your camera to match a calibrated display,
>>4522855I see this cameraless retard has yet to shut the fuck up. If you owned a camera you’d know that one shot white balance is faster and more accurate than eyeballing it and includes tint, which K setting usually doesn’t. Literally everything you post is non-factual or misleading. Please fuck off and die.
>>4522855> Grey card isn't needed anymore with modern mirrorless. you can just set the K value and tint by eye, comparing screen with what you see, tweaking until it matches.either hindi is your first language or you are seriously retarded. this reads like a transcription of a third worlder’s heavily accented “english”>grey card isnt needed sir>set comparing screen with what you see yes>in india we dont have no camera but i read dpreview>i think calibrate evf to match screen by looking at yes? abbo level of technological understanding right there
kinda specific but does anyone have the a7rvi and does planespotting? its so niche that theres no rolling shutter tests on the internet for that lol, im mostly interested in military jets so fast panning and whatnot. 10 fps mechanical seems good enough but theres no precapture
>>452286219ms 14 bit, 14ms 12 bit for eshutterBut 10fps mechanical means it is basically a sports camera, just not a “if i miss the bat crack im fired” sports camera
>>4522867the idea is to shoot mechanical and then bind a button to the speed boost option or whatever its called. id still be losing the precapture most of the time. im trying to decide between a7rvi and z8. i think ill wait till dec/jan before buying, maybe therell be some z8ii news
>>4522869>>4522869Sony R cameras are not fast action machines except by old canon 1d standards. Like you wouldnt want to actually use the speed boost. there would be visible distortion unless you learned to track against rolling shutter. Sony outside the a1/a9 series isnt that good for action really. Their res/DR advantage over canon isn’t free. Nikon is kinda budget. if you can afford an a7rvi look into canon instead. R6III > Z8.
>>4522869Likely won't see a Z8II until 2028, we'll probably see Z9II with the next summer Olympics and then that tech trickle downDo expect more Z8 firmware updates in the meantime though
>>4522858>>4522859If you don't want to rely on the EVF/screen to judge exposure and color there is not really a reason to use mirrorless.DSLR's OVF is going to be superior for your grampa needs.The entire point of mirrorless is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) which allows getting much better photos at the moment of capture and reducing or eliminating post-development / post-processing. With WYSIWYG you rely on your own judgment instead of relying on the camera's best guess.
>>4522884So they're just for skill issue beginners?
>>4522888He doesn’t even own a camera. It’s either a bot, a shill, or a retard.
>out of all the things in the world to be an autistic schizo fanboy of he chooses sony camerasso weird lol
>>4522835>I use sony cameras at work. Canon DSLRs are superior for a hobby. Funnily enough I'm the opposite at work. Canon mirrorless for everything work related, then the Sony for my free time/hobby stuff. All my film stuff is Nikon though, not sure why that happened.>>4522904>out of all the things in to world to be an autistic schizo fanboy of he chooses sony camerasESL.
>>4522904Your esl is showing (again)-9001 izzat
>>4522884>The entire point of mirrorless is WYSIWYGIf you're a total beginner, sureOtherwise, you're just retarded
>>4522888What you consider "skill" is really just repetition of obsolete behaviors that were necessary with film cameras and to some extent DSLR.
>>4522916>saar shoot jpeg saar saaaaar dslr is obsolete SAAAAAARYou’ve had and lost this argument before shilljeethttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/DSLR%20obsolete/
>>4522916>t. 5
>DSLR never pluralIts him. The same guy every time. Does he think he’s trolling by shitting out high effort mostly unique retardposts 24/7? Trolling is low investment high reward. Not publicly shaming yourself by spending months demonstrating low intelligence, absent knowledge, and a cameraless lifestyle on a photography board.
>>4522920maybe he’s trans and has a humiliation fetish?
>>4522920I saw someone say he's an autist that got banned from some photography forum and now has to post here, but nobody really knows what's going on with him.
>>4522922Its probably some mentally disabled guy. Legit welfare autist shit.
>>4522916This. Similar thing with recording RAWs. They think it's a skill to load the RAW into a computer program and massage sliders to get the result on the right. Actually, if you learn to use your mirrorless camera you can get either result straight out of camera for photos and videos.
>>4522926Move slider on computer - >:'(Turn dial on camera -> =D
>>4522927Garbage in, garbage out. Expose your shots correctly to begin with and the results will always look better no matter how much you do or don't edit them. Photoshop is no excuse for sloppy work.
>>4522926True, makes sense when you consider professionals never edit
>>4522933>was using ALO since I use RAW+JPEG>found out later it boosts the shadows in the viewfinder>RAWs always end up underexposed to save the highlights in the JPGs and boost the shadows for the JPGs
>>4522933Edit on computer -> >:[Edit in camera -> :DEditing photos is an unavoidable part of photography. Always has been, always will be. Even with a perfect exposure.The reason that guy chose to take a seemingly underexposed image for that mountain shot is because he was exposing for the highlights. Digital cameras have excellent shadow recovery and shitty highlight latitude, so he just lifted them in post. If he gave the scene any more exposure he would have blown out the sky.You do the exact same thing except opposite for film, which has excellent highlight latitude and shitty shadow recovery.
>>4522926>Buy Snoy>Have no option but to edit every single photo you take to fix magenta casts, red shadows and moire >cope by saying it takes skills to drag sliders and its just a part of the craftYikes!
>>4522940>Sony is green!>Sony is red!Inb4 Sony is blue
>>4522927>>4522934>>4522938Its the mentally disabled guyhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lcaC7-_Uoev0gElFuOWiqw/You’re as dumb as he is if you have a response for his reposts besides>do you own a camera?He freaks out about sony or something if you ask him that btw
>>4522941You just replied to the special ed nophoto samefagging himselfNow that his samefagging has been pointed out he will accuse everyone else of whatever he does, double down samefagging “sony bad”, and claim he is the victim.
>>4522941Sony is olo
>>4522942Other people calling people stupid - >:[Me calling people stupid - :D
>>4522945>Other people calling people stupid - >:[>Me calling people stupid - :D
>>4522504If you have ANY capacity for critical thinking at all, you would realise that maybe there's a reason why sony is unique in having this much discourse regarding colour casts. You think these things just come out of nothing? Lol.
>>4522946You just give off major hall monitor vibes, lanklet.
>>4522938Only if you consider adjusting timing in the darkroom and paper choice, timings of chemicals to be "editing".Fucking digital retards.Used to do it all "in camera". What you frame is what you get, no cropping, no tidying, just nail the exposure, frame the fucker and shoot. Fucking "digital darkroom" is cancer.
>>4522888You also get a smaller and lighter camera, better lenses, better AF and tracking because the AF sensors are on the actual sensor, and regarding the EVF they're usually larger and brighter than optical finders and have 100% coverage, plus they can show your focus accurately and show depth of field shallower than f/2.8. The advantage of DSLRs is basically battery life and price.
>>4522973Lol, everyone who tried to rely on focus peaking knows it is useless for anything shallow, even f/4 is inaccurate. It's like you are reading a spec sheet and never actually used a camera
>>4522952Digital Mirrorless:>WYSIWYG>Muh CLUTs>I can make BLACK AND WHITE RETRO FILMIC photos by moving this slider!>300% crop just because>Sharpening +100>Saturation +70>Follow THIS youtube guide (10:13 long) to get INSTANT results!Film:>Take photo>Develop in chemicals>maybe do contact prints if you're feeling frisky
>>4522977Sounds to me like you're the one who's never actually used one. I've never seen anyone else say focus peaking isn't accurate, and even if you turned peaking off you'd still be able to see what's in focus according to the sensor plane, not an entirely separate focussing screen that is hopefully calibrated correctly. I've used focus peaking way back with my NEX-3 (never had an E mount lenses for it) and had no issues down to f/1.2.
>>4522568Strange that all sensors are made by sony
How are these? Worth it 50% off?
Honest question - how much would be worth Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM "macro" lens for Nikon? I was visiting photo gear store and they offered equivalent of around 175$.
>>4522537Fujifilm is the most aesthetically pleasing by far.
>>4522991Macro zooms, and I mean with literally no exceptions, are all trash when used at macro distances. Your mid-frame will be soft even if your center is sharp. Now if you're just buying it for general purpose use then it's likely good value if not sharp by modern standards. But for $175 that's pretty good for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.
>>4522996I mean, I try to sell it, not to buy it. Expected a bit more, closer to equivalent of 250$.
>>4522985Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group (sensor maker) and Sony Electronics (camera maker) are separate divisions.Sony Semiconductor Solutions makes sensors to the spec of client companies like Fujifilm, Panasonic, OM System.The clients decide on CFA strength (transmittance) which is a critical part of colour science.
>>4522995>Wax skin, whiteless eyes, and worms are aesthetically pleasing
Picked up one of these guys, pretty fun
>>4522991That sounds about right, I wouldn't be surprised to see $150 even>>4522998Why? Look at used prices, consider a shop needs to markup, and consider they assume the risk it simply sits and never sellsIt's not really a lens in high demand, it's literally a 20 year old 3rd party lens that has had like +5 updated versions come out since it's release
>>4522927>Move slider on computer - >:'(>Turn dial on camera -> =D>>4522938>Edit on computer -> >:[>Edit in camera -> :Dcomputer -> I don't see the scene while adjusting the capturecamera -> I do see the scene while adjusting the captureIf your photo is intended to document something real it's important to be able to reference that reality while you edit.Otherwise, editing from memory, or editing "to taste" creates a false representation of the scene.
>>4523007>Shrek skin is beautiful
>>4523011Do you ever get bored reposting the same shit over and over?
Why aren't we seeing displayport alt mode on cameras to replace the HDMI out (which is a standard that also requires royalties, unlike DP). Everyone complains about micro/mini HDMI on cameras, this problem is also solved by using the USB-C port that is already on the camera.A single USB-C (that you already owned) to do both display out and charge the camera. Why is HDMI still even around on cameras? Am I missing something here? Or is it just another case of normalfags being cattle and refusing to accept superior alternatives?
>>4523010>Why?Because I just saw few offers for this particular lens on local auction/marketplace service for equivalent of 480$.
>>4523022It would be nice if it was an option (I didn't realise it's not, I would have just assumed any camera from say the last 5 years would do it) but I wouldn't want it as an only option. Displays that have a type C input aren't all that common so you'd need a converter cable or dongle.
>>4523000You’re just making shit up to justify your beliefs
>>4523011>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/D3t9AJnsmuu98c7CwhWjmQ/Do you own a camera? You talk like an autistic retard that doesn’t and just ~theorizes~ about it. Because nobody who owns a camera would say this stupid shit.
Fujislug thought process:Make false claimReject evidence to the contraryDemand evidence under specific conditions you know are less likelyCry about sonyRepeat self multiple timesForgetMake false claim…Repeat until everyone leaves and you have /p/ to yourself so no one ever doubts fuji again>>4522504/threadShooting raw is superiorSony is superiorFujislugs will lie to no end on repeat just to try and bury the facts
>>4522949>if an autistic 4channer complains about it its a problem ok? what about the time panasonic gave julia trotti a payout?Why do the most color critical photographers use sony? Why are all the problems julia trotti, you, and how to set white balance videos from 10 years ago?Sony is superior. Shooting raw is superior.
>>4523030If you replace honest photography with honest camera review you are almost the exact same as the honest photography autist. I hope you will be able to recognize that one day.
>>4522504holy fucking basedbuying a sony asap
>>4523036>le both sides are bad>leave me alone its the same as me>repetition (like i do) irritates me pls stop
>>4522504Bros I thought canon was #1? Was it always just R50 sales holding them up?
>>4523022Normies have always been too stupid to understand good standards.
>>4523024So then sell it there instead
Why can't I have a pancake zoom lens like the 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS with better glass? I don't need the OSS or the powerzoom, why is there no alternative? I already have the 16-55G F2.8, I just want something compact and pocketable with a lens that offers better results than a goddamn phone camera.
>>4523038Like I said, hopefully one day you will understand.
>>4523041>>4523022Normal people dont know what this shit is. Its just the japanese not actually being as high IQ as richard lynns data mistepresented them as. They are not really an innovative or brilliant people (their culture actively punishes and suppresses innovative people) and the US stopped sending them fresh research to iterate on a long time ago. We send all our knowledge to china instead, for the manufacture of smartphones. The japs who make these cameras are so behind, most battery packs are two li-ion AAs. Only sony finally figured out how to improve that, only for their two newest $3k cameras, and they are literally fifteen fucking years late and exactly that far behind the batteries in phones (because they’re afraid of abandoning the old drop in battery form factor and switching to a longer flat one that slots in through the side)
>>4523044not him but i underdstandeverything the other guy posts is fake shit he made up to try and tell people to buy fuji instead of sonyfuji cameras are actual garbage. the autofocus doesnt even work and the jpegs look like iphone quality. any amount of autism is worth saving people from a fuji fanboys anti-sony lies. sony cameras actually work. fuji cameras do not. i stand with the deboonker. imagine being new to /p/, reading fujislug falsehoods, and ending up with blurry wormy photos with zombie skin tones, beige eyeballs, and autofocus that randomly fails… wrapped up in the so-so build quality of a sony from 2014>that will be $1699 plus lens and tip, sir
I like my fuji xt3 + voigtlander (picrel), am I welcome here?I have also tried canon and liked how good their in-camera hdr is, but don't like how hostile they are to third party lenses and their lenses don't have aperture rings
>>4523049Practice your exposure.
>>4523049Ah, the xt3. Back when fuji cameras were well built and they didn’t seem that bad because the alternative was micro four thirds with worse everything, a disposable canon eos m, or a sony a7 mark one that could be broken out of the box. Its a shame that the way things changed led the crazy brand cult surrounding it to drive up used xt3 prices to nearly a grand when its mogged by basically everything these days. Im 99% convinced its the fault of people reading old reddit recommendations and brainlessly believing them and consooming.
>>4523053>fuji then: $1000 new promo price for ages, aka the real minimum profitable price sans gouging, what else are you gonna get fag you cant afford $2k for an a7iii>fuji now: more expensive than a zf or z5ii for a blatantly inferior camera “but its 8% smaller and has le feelm sims” (also, unlike 2018 everyones pc can now run a quality raw processor like its nothing)
I like this lens
>>4523055sorry, not supporting china by buying or owning their hobby product.
>>4523054is the nikon zf a good step up from the xt3? i am autistic and need the dials and also to use fully manual lenses which is why I like voigtlander.
>>4523057Technologically yes, it even has manual focus confirmation and trap focus for leica lensesIn feel, no, its as plasticky as the xt5 and has a worse grip feel. The Z5II is the one to get. Just embrace abandoning the shutter and ISO dials (only old olympus OM mount cameras put the shutter dial in an ergonomic place anyways) and use lenses with aperture rings.
>>4522537I have a Fuji, and it's alright. Sane default colors and plus film sims can enhance some photos.Looking at forum threads, I like Nikon colors as well.
>>4522537Newer sony or older canon. Newer canon (after the eos r and eos rp) has bad colorOlder sony (from shortly after they bought minolta to the a7iii) has bad colorNikon is hit or miss (the 45mps have shittier color than the lower resolution cameras and many of the DSLRs had bad color casts in the shadows)Panasonic doesnt even try to have good color because 100% of panasonic users use a log gammaOlympus color is genuinely terrible even in raw and its really obvious they were always a scientific and medical equipment company, not an art supplies companyPentax color is quite good but it’s basically a film stock and doesn’t fit everything
>hey will you give me the value of a new lense for a 20 year old camera lol
>>452306550mm f1.8 D: $75SB900: $75D7000: $150Seems fair to meNext cheapest is 5D classics and D300s
>>4523065damn they were making them in thailand that far back? shame
>>4522981>I've never seen anyone else say focus peaking isn't accurateOn some older manual lenses it isn't, at least not on my R5.
What's actually wrong with them?>offers full frame and has decent autofocus unlike fuji>doesn't have bad colors and doesn't make stuff in China like sony>aren't jews about their lens mount like canon>has the best lens mount, considering sony e can be adapted to nikon z>generally no complaints about stabilizationI've never used a nikon but it seems they are the best, all things considered. Am I missing something here? All they need is to make all their stuff in japan it seems.
>>4523045>(because they’re afraid of abandoning the old drop in battery form factor and switching to a longer flat one that slots in through the side)It's not that. These companies don't give a shit about form factors or whether a battery is advanced or not, what they care about is whether it's proprietary. The actual best would be if the camera just took one or two universal li-ion cylindrical cells directly, e.g. 18650 or 16340 or something. But they won't do it, because proprietary batteries and chargers generate sales for them, both passively and in case of failure, and they absolutely HATE the idea of you being able to just buy whatever li-ion cell you want from any brand while getting 2x the battery life for half the price - or, God forbid, a ferrophosphate cell that lasts for like 5x as many charging cycles.TL;DR they only care about whether the battery is proprietary, whether it's good or not is mostly inconsequential to them, and they'd prefer it be bad so that you have to buy more of them and replace them more often.
>>4523089No real-time clipping indication and they don't allow zebras in still photo mode.
>>4523092What's wrong with a histogram?
>>4523089>aren't jews about their lens mount like canonAnd that's why they still refuse to let Sigma make proper lenses for Z mount, trying to force their own stupidly expensive variants?
>>4523095You can just adapt sony e (of which sigma makes 35 lenses) though. Also who the fuck buys sigma? They're sterile and gross.
>>4523093doesn't show extent of clipping and small clipped areas may not show up at all.
>>4523096I simply would like to have something to replace my F mount Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR without costing arm and leg.
>>4523097>damn if only I had blinkies I totally could've adjusted my exposure on this bird mid-flight>no I am not a professional and no one would ever even notice or care that 5% of the bright white bird is overexposed come on anon, this is a bit of a stretch.>>4523098stop using zoom lenses friend.
>>4523031It's a Fuji guy? I thought it was a Panasonic guy that was going all autistic against Sony
>>4523043There's the 28-60mm, that's about the same size and is actually really good quality. As for primes, there's the 24mm and 40mm that are about the same size too I think.
>>4523092>>4523097Do you own a camera?
>>4523099No, I use zooms because they are THAT convinent. Because I don't have to carry 2-3 lenses with me and keep changing them. Because I'm not restricted when I CAN'T move around as freely as in studio or other controled environment. Because when I travel, I'm going to take ONE lens with me and it will have to be as universal as possible.
>>4523099>damn if only I had blinkies I totally could've adjusted my exposure on this bird mid-flightif I was tracking the bird for more than a second, certainly.Most BiF captures start with a perched bird and exposure would be set properly then - quickly with the help of highlight warnings.Personally I don't prefer blinkies because of the slow blink rate. OM's system with the tint overlay is better.
>>4523105Do you own a camera?
>>4523106Do you? And do you take photos with it?
>>4523011High IQ post>>4522938Low IQ post
>>4523033>Sony is superior. >Shooting raw is superior>implying RAW fixes your green hue>implying 4chan is the only place complaining about snoygreenLol.
>>4523109>green hueDid you mean canon? Or fuji?https://www.fujix-forum.com/threads/green-tint.89174/https://www.fujix-forum.com/threads/my-x100-has-a-greenish-tint.76325/https://diglloyd.com/blog/2016/20160327_2124-FujifilmXPro2-GreenTint.html
>>4523107You didn't answer the question
>>4523107Yes. Now post your camera. >>4523108Both are retarded.
>>4523109Done in jpeg…https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/The truth doesn’t liehttps://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/sony-dominates-canon-and-nikon-in-the-mirrorless-camera-market-for-the-third-year-running/You do. Sony is the only real option. Canon and Nikon are for getting certain features for less money at the cost of quality. Other brands dont exist outside of social media marketing campaigns.
>>4523113Sony is only bought for companies by executives that don't know or care about the product. Look at all the worst photography companies in the world... getty images? Snoy. Professionals shoot canon. plain and simple. Canon sells more cameras. Just hard facts. Sorry! :D
>>4523110>implying snoy comes even close to fuji coloursLol you're indian
newfag hereIm buying a sony. The pro sony bros have hard facts and the anti sony trannies tell me to shoot jpeg even though all pros shoot raw, and then i find out sony has the best live view blinkies, the most customizable jpeg settings, and the best jpeg color so sony still winsSony has the best small primes too. Only leica is better but I’m not jewish ok?a7cii or a7cr?
>>4523114Canon mostly sells r50s at walmart. Real cameras only, sony already won. >>4523115Is that why everyone buys fuji over sony? Oh wait they dont. Sony won. Fujis autofocus doesnt even work right.
>>4523116>a7cii or a7cr?All the rubbers will have detiorated and the whole camera will have fallen apart by the time you buy it. Shoot olympus if you want ACTUAL weather sealing.
>>4523116As a former newfag who bought an a7c when they saw how stupid anti-sony shills are, I recommend the a7cii for general photography and the a7cr if you need focus bracketing and dont do a lot of video.
>>4523117>Canon mostly sells r50s at walmart. Real cameras only, sony already won.>saying this like the r50 doesnt have better colours, autofocus, lens mount, image quality than a7xicixivi green edition tm
>>4523118Right, that’s why all the pro journalists choose olympusOh wait they all use sony>>4523120This retard cant even into numbers. Typical low IQ sony hater. Probably indian.
>>4523111Because you don't own a camera.>>4523112nta + I don't believe you.
>>4523121>This retard cant even into numberssaaaar you cannot even the into numerals saaaar you must listen the name of snoy professionally on this forum saaarAHahahahahaha
>>4523112>>4523111bros he doesnt own a camera. hes an indian shill.all photographers use sony if they can afford it and only use canon or nikon if they cant afford a sony with the features they want. no one who does photography hates sony. its all nophotos and one israeli pooch plapper.
>>4523122>Post my camera!? NO YOU! YOU DONT OWN A CAMERA! IM THE VICTIIIIMLol ok nophotoYou’re probably that jewish furry and ashamed of posting any photos because we’d know it was you
I'm sick of the vignetting and weird colours on my A7RV... what do you guys reccomend with good colours? So sick of having to edit every RAW just to get realistic colours... what team should I join bros?
>SAARS PLEASE LEAVE SONY ALONE!
>>4523126You lack skill. Annie Leibovitz uses an A7RV without those problems. Try learning photography before blaming your gear.
>>4523126Nikon/Canon/Fuji.
>>4523128>dragging sliders to fix your cameras shortcomings is skilltoppest of keks
NTA but I agree with the prevailing sentiment that sony makes the best cameras. After all, they have live view blinkies. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1532253/
>>4523128>vitz>implying any jew has ever taken a good photo
>>4523130It’s not a slider issue. You’re using bad camera settings. Maybe you should go to photography school or switch to an easier beginners camera like a canon since you cant figure out a real professional tool.
>>4523129The only three modern camera brands...
>>4523132All of the good photos were taken by jews. In fact, there is only one bad jewish photographer, and he lost his J card for being a furry.
>>4523133What setting do you change on sony to turn the green cast off? Which button does that? Reply quickly please.
>>4522504Truth. Fucking. Nuke.Sony IS photography. Imagine how much tech they have to hold back to not put canon and nikon out of business (like how the other 3 brands basically stopped existing).
>>4523136There is no green cast. See a doctor. Seriously. if your camera has been up your anus the green/magenta sensor has lost calibration. Anal insertion of a sony camera or lens causes a lasting green tint. Definitely see a doctor.
>>4523125That's extra hilarious because I was trolling him last time he showed up, just as I am now trolling you.You are inventing new reasons to sperg out because you don't actually own a camera. Prove me wrong.
This thread makes me so glad that EXIF was removed from /p/ so that Sony retards shit is contained to here instead of shitting up /rpt/ to complain if a photo was taken with a Sony (with his disappearance from bitching in /rpt/ pretty much proving he can't tell the difference between Sony or anything else).
>>4523139>i was trolling myselfYeah your people do that a lot
>huskyfag is the snoy hate autistdidnt we already know this
>>4523142I really have no idea who any of these people are and I feel like I'm better off not knowing. The name implies furfag shit though.
>>4523143He likes to deflect by projecting his lust for dog upon any anon that accuses him of such, which is how you can tell it's true. Pretends to be an expert elite photographer but couldn't take a good photo to save his life. Also nearly incapable of taking a photo of anything that isn't his husky, someone else's dog, or otherwise dog-related e.g. dog park. Suspected by some to be a Mossad agent.
>>4523143Does a furfag hating sony, the best cameras, really surprise you?
>>4523144The jew fears the sony camera
>>4523146Sony are unfortunately just Eastern Jews, sorry to say.
>>4523145I always imagine furfags as being Fuji users, I don't know why.
>>4523147>uhh actually japan is jewish tooWrong. Honorary Aryans. The jew fears the Sony Samurai.>>4523148Furfags all use fuji, leica, and nikon because they’re gay and those are also gay cameras. Sony is supremely straight.
not really involved in this but the antisemitism coming from snoy fans is really making me consider buying a canon instead
>>4523149Not literally Jewish, they just act like kikes. Pretty standard-fare for corpos in the present day. The other nipponese brands aren't really much better, some anons just single out Snoy specifically for some reason, I guess because they're popular and trendy among normies.
>>4523151Now the low IQ antisemitism coming from this sony hater is making me want to buy a sony!
>>4522504>all these samefag schizo replies to himselfGrim
>>4523150Jews are the reason 99% of digital cameras built today aren't even half as good, relatively speaking, as any film SLR from the 70s was.Buying a Fujica ST801 in 1972 or ST901 in '74 was legit like buying a fucking spaceship, and the ones that were taken good care of are still working perfectly today. Show me a consumer-level Snoy, Foolji, Niggon, Cannot, Panashitnic, etc. that you can buy new today that will still be alive and in good working order 50 years from now.
>>4523155Film cameras, especially entry level models like this, were never used to the same extent digital cameras are, as you're limited by how much film you can buy and carry. I would conversely ask you to show me a fujica that has survived taking 2mil+ photos, as many 5D's and 1D's have
>>4523157This is true, but that's why I said relatively. The primary point of failure in use for these old cameras was the cloth shutter, and they could still handle more snaps than the majority of users would take. When they do fail, it's a relatively simple mechanical fix. Built to last, not built to be replaced.
>>4523155This low IQ antisemitism is making me think digital > film
>>4523159Cope all you want, it won't change the truth.
>>4523160>jews are why my autistic cameraless self is disappointed with my latest purchaseYeah you just won Israel a new fan.
>>4523163I don't think being a fan of a decrepit shithole that has made the world worse for the past 40 years is as much of an own as you think it is, anon. Assuming you're not just trolling for fun. I genuinely hope that the light of Christ will find you someday, wishing you all the best.
How to spot a snoy shizo>posts 6 irrelevant sponsored articles per post>brings up how much he loves israel unprompted>brings up india unprompted>hates Jesus>fears the samurai>loves the colour green
>>4523159That isn't an argument, lil bro. Nice opinion tho.
>>4523164>*BANG BANG BANG*>DHS! OPEN THE DOOR! WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT ISRAEL AND SONY!whatchu gon do timmy?
Antisemite hereI prefer Sony
>>4523168>>4523165>>4523127>>4523109>>4523110this thread is literally indistinguishable from a /v/ console war thread
>>4523095Sigma's zoom rings rotate the wrong way, like Canon and Olympus. Nikon should not allow this foolishness on their mount.
>>4523169Anything to do other than actually playing the game, I mean taking photos
>>4523169What is it with autists attaching their entire personalities to Sony products?
>>4523174No one actually uses sony here. We’re just trolling the anti-sony schizo.
>>4523176Nope. Wrong. Nice Try. Sony Has the largest Market Share. Everyone here uses Sony, except nocamera nophotos Antisemetic Sony haters.
>>4523177>Sony Has the largest Market Share.Telling lies, anon?
>>4523178typical canon Antisemite making up lies again...https://www.sonyboomersmagazine.net/article/why-sony-is-the-best-selling-camera-ever/https://www.mumbaimarketmonthly.net/story/youre-next-camera-will-be-sony-sir/https://www.unbaisedsonyrumours.net/whycanonsucksactually/
>>4523178how strange that camera quality is inversely proportional to market share.
>>4523183You almost got me until I looked at the URLs for more than two seconds kek
>>4523174Better question is why someone's entire personality is hating Sony. It's a camera brand and nobody really cares what you use but this guy tries to be the OP for every gear thread just so he can start it with some shit about Sony and just keeps going on about it for the rest of the thread. It's why /gear/ sucks now.>>4523177Largest market share in mirrorless, it's DSLR where it has no share and Canon takes over (I'm not sure if Sony ever made DSLRs desu).
>>4523178Discount ewaste cameras (sensors less than ff, any dslr) and canon’s market share vanishes
>>4523187Incorrect.
>>4523186I hope he keeps getting OP because watching thurdies and Snoyfags reeeee about literally anything bad being said about Snoy will never not be entertaining
Sony won >>4523190>>4523190>>4523190
>>4523176Okay that makes sense. But i think he's taking it seriously. You're going to give the poor guy a brain aneurysm.
>>4523184It's because when companies get big/entrenched they no longer have incentive to improve their products.Sales roll in based on brand recognition and partnerships. The actual product quality matters very little.Perfect example is Microsoft. They will never make a good operating system again because they are so entrenched in the IT world with most users being oblivious to how bad their operating systems have become.
>>4523189So you want absolutely no discussion at all and for everything to just be back and forth shit flinging about Sony for every post? Really? Because that's where we're at.
>>4523184According to who? Looks like it tracks to me. The smallest brands are the furthest behind in autofocus, which is the most basic feature of any camera and what sets them apart from phones. People who are ok with lesser autofocus all buy older cameras, even DSLRs. not just that - the lowest ranked brand sold a compact ff without a shutter. if they just weren’t retarded, they would be #3 just by offering an a7c competitor which literally no one else does. people spending thousands of dollars, prefer to buy better cameras, not worse ones
>>4523043maybe the 10-20 4 at 178g, it should complement your 16-55 if you like wide shots.
Fuck your niggerish camera and sensor sperging that leads nowhere.I have the sony a6700 and widest lens is a sigma 16mm 1.416mm on aspc is 24mm on ffI don t find it wide enoughRecommend me a wider lensLooking at 7artisans coz they are quite cheapWidest rectilinear i foundhttps://7artisans.store/products/af-10mm-f2-8-aps-c-lens-for-e-fx-z?_pos=3&_sid=6c636605b&_ss=rhttps://7artisans.store/products/10mm-f-3-5-aps-c-lens-for-sony-e-fuji-x-nikon-z-panasonic-olympus-m43Fish eyehttps://7artisans.store/products/4mm-f-2-8-aps-c-lens-for-e-eos-m-fx-m43https://7artisans.store/products/7-5mm-f2-8-mk-iihttps://7artisans.store/products/mf-6mm-f-2-0-aps-c-lens-for-sony-e-fuji-x-eos-r-nikon-z-panasonic-olympus-m43Watched some reviews on yt and for fish eye you get some circle looking image in a black rectangle so you need to crop like crazy cutting out a lot of the edges. So the end photo wil not be the advertised focal distance . The rectilinear one while greater focal lenght at least i get the image covering whole sensorNow 10mm on aspc will get me 15mm on ff. Is that wide enough?Also 2.8 and 3.5 are shit fot astro so i can use them only for street or arhitectural photos which i m not a fan of.I m looking into the 6mm 2.0 but don t know the actual focal lenght i ll end up with after cropping the circle to a rectangleSony 11mm is 2x the priced used
>>4523240Yt nigger said that fisheye lenses are more for artistic looking pics and you must know what you are doing as framing is almost impossible especially with the 4mm and 6mm that will even get your feet and hands holding the camera in the picture. so you must hold the camera like a phone and hands stretched out.They said that a rectilinear one is what i should be getting if i m a normie that want wide shots. But i kind of want a faster lens to use for astro or lower light photos like museums
>>4523101I'm on APS-C, but that zoom range might be quite interesting at 42mm - 90mm. Might be fun for street photography.
>>4523170>nikon should not allow the foolishness of zoom lensesI agree
>>4522808completely defeats the purpose of having a compact camera... who thought up of this shit
should I get a Nikkor DX 35mm F1.8 for my 24mp APS-C dslr or buy a Lumix g3 and 7artisans 25mm F1.8 for the same price combinedI don't want overly blurry background but want decent light performance for a street camerasince for gives DOF m43 will give a bit over 1 stop of light more than aps-c and 2 stops over ff, and wide open I will have f3.6 equivalent, is it worth it? or would having 1 more stop of light be better for the cost of reduced dof?low light ISO performance is pretty much 1 stop apart in this setup. but DSLR and the lens are significantly larger and heavier
>>4523654also could go 2cam and have different primes on both for faster switching
>>4523650some models fold better than others
>>4523675>almost 5 cmthat's thicker than a good chunk of cameras, and thicker than all the cameras I can think of which don't have a viewfinder which are the only cameras this would be useful in.
>>4523721that 1.8" dimension probably includes the projecting rail which slides into the tripod plate. Here's a pic mounted on Sigma BF which is 3.7cm thick including lens mount projection. The rubber in folded position would be slimmer than that body.Not an ideal solution for sure, I would prefer an EVF, but it opens up some possibilities for EVF-less cameras.
>>452365435mm dx does not breathe as focusing sensible pick for street
